Clear a draft

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With annotations of openWorldHint and idempotentHint, the description adds the key behavioral fact that this acts as save_draft with empty text, effectively clearing the draft. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful context beyond them, though it omits details like return values or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action, and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While the tool is simple, the complete absence of parameter semantics and no output schema leaves the description insufficient for confident invocation. The agent may infer the purpose but cannot determine correct input formats without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides zero information about the 'peer' or 'accountId' parameters. Schema descriptions are also absent (0% coverage), so the agent must guess the meaning of parameters, which is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool clears a draft by equating it to 'save_draft' with an empty text. This is a specific verb+resource (clear + draft) and distinguishes it from the related 'save_draft' tool by indicating the special case of empty content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the use case: when you want to clear a draft. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'save_draft' or other alternatives, nor does it say when not to use this tool. The equivalence gives some guidance but leaves the selection logic implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.